Statizoid

Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Réunion

Réunion: Major livestock types — Share in total livestock was 100 %LSU in 2006. ▬ Flat

Latest (2006)
100 %LSU
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 192 countries
All-time high
100 %LSU
in 1961
All-time low
100 %LSU
in 1961
Years of data
46
1961–2006

Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Réunion, 1961–2006

020406080100196119832006

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Measured in %LSU.

Analysis

The most recent figure for major livestock types — share in total livestock in Réunion is 100 %LSU, measured in 2006. That is the highest value across all 46 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.

Over the whole period, major livestock types — share in total livestock in Réunion peaked at 100 %LSU in 1961 and was at its lowest, 100 %LSU, in 1961.

That places Réunion 1st out of 192 countries with data for 2006, putting it in the top 10%.

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
1960s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 9
1970s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 10
1980s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 10
1990s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 10
2000s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 7

Countries ranked near Réunion

  1. 1 Afghanistan 100 %LSU compare
  2. 1 Albania 100 %LSU compare
  3. 1 Algeria 100 %LSU compare
  4. 1 Angola 100 %LSU compare
  5. 1 Antigua and Barbuda 100 %LSU compare
  6. 1 Argentina 100 %LSU compare
  7. 1 Armenia 100 %LSU compare
  8. 1 Australia 100 %LSU compare
  9. 1 Austria 100 %LSU compare
  10. 1 Azerbaijan 100 %LSU compare
  11. 1 Bahamas 100 %LSU compare
  12. 1 Bahrain 100 %LSU compare
  13. 1 Bangladesh 100 %LSU compare
  14. 1 Barbados 100 %LSU compare
  15. 1 Belarus 100 %LSU compare
  16. 1 Belgium 100 %LSU compare
  17. 1 Belgium-Luxembourg 100 %LSU compare
  18. 1 Belize 100 %LSU compare
  19. 1 Benin 100 %LSU compare
  20. 1 Bhutan 100 %LSU compare
  21. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 100 %LSU compare
  22. 1 Botswana 100 %LSU compare
  23. 1 Brazil 100 %LSU compare
  24. 1 Brunei Darussalam 100 %LSU compare
  25. 1 Bulgaria 100 %LSU compare
  26. 1 Burkina Faso 100 %LSU compare
  27. 1 Burundi 100 %LSU compare
  28. 1 Cambodia 100 %LSU compare
  29. 1 Cameroon 100 %LSU compare
  30. 1 Canada 100 %LSU compare
  31. 1 Central African Republic 100 %LSU compare
  32. 1 Chad 100 %LSU compare
  33. 1 Chile 100 %LSU compare
  34. 1 China (People’s Republic of) 100 %LSU compare
  35. 1 China, Hong Kong SAR 100 %LSU compare
  36. 1 China, Macao SAR 100 %LSU compare
  37. 1 China, mainland 100 %LSU compare
  38. 1 China, Taiwan Province of 100 %LSU compare
  39. 1 Colombia 100 %LSU compare
  40. 1 Comoros 100 %LSU compare
  41. 1 Congo 100 %LSU compare
  42. 1 Cook Islands 100 %LSU compare
  43. 1 Costa Rica 100 %LSU compare
  44. 1 Croatia 100 %LSU compare
  45. 1 Cuba 100 %LSU compare
  46. 1 Cyprus 100 %LSU compare
  47. 1 Czechia 100 %LSU compare
  48. 1 Czechoslovakia 100 %LSU compare
  49. 1 Denmark 100 %LSU compare
  50. 1 Djibouti 100 %LSU compare
  51. 1 Dominica 100 %LSU compare
  52. 1 Dominican Republic 100 %LSU compare
  53. 1 Ecuador 100 %LSU compare
  54. 1 Egypt 100 %LSU compare
  55. 1 El Salvador 100 %LSU compare
  56. 1 Equatorial Guinea 100 %LSU compare
  57. 1 Eritrea 100 %LSU compare
  58. 1 Estonia 100 %LSU compare
  59. 1 Eswatini 100 %LSU compare
  60. 1 Ethiopia 100 %LSU compare
  61. 1 Ethiopia PDR 100 %LSU compare
  62. 1 Faroe Islands 100 %LSU compare
  63. 1 Fiji 100 %LSU compare
  64. 1 Finland 100 %LSU compare
  65. 1 France 100 %LSU compare
  66. 1 French Guiana 100 %LSU compare
  67. 1 French Polynesia 100 %LSU compare
  68. 1 Gabon 100 %LSU compare
  69. 1 Gambia 100 %LSU compare
  70. 1 Georgia 100 %LSU compare
  71. 1 Germany 100 %LSU compare
  72. 1 Ghana 100 %LSU compare
  73. 1 Greece 100 %LSU compare
  74. 1 Grenada 100 %LSU compare
  75. 1 Guadeloupe 100 %LSU compare
  76. 1 Guatemala 100 %LSU compare
  77. 1 Guinea 100 %LSU compare
  78. 1 Guinea-Bissau 100 %LSU compare
  79. 1 Guyana 100 %LSU compare
  80. 1 Haiti 100 %LSU compare
  81. 1 Honduras 100 %LSU compare
  82. 1 Hungary 100 %LSU compare
  83. 1 Iceland 100 %LSU compare
  84. 1 India 100 %LSU compare
  85. 1 Indonesia 100 %LSU compare
  86. 1 Iraq 100 %LSU compare
  87. 1 Ireland 100 %LSU compare
  88. 1 Israel 100 %LSU compare
  89. 1 Italy 100 %LSU compare
  90. 1 Jamaica 100 %LSU compare
  91. 1 Japan 100 %LSU compare
  92. 1 Jordan 100 %LSU compare
  93. 1 Kazakhstan 100 %LSU compare
  94. 1 Kenya 100 %LSU compare
  95. 1 Kiribati 100 %LSU compare
  96. 1 Kuwait 100 %LSU compare
  97. 1 Kyrgyzstan 100 %LSU compare
  98. 1 Latvia 100 %LSU compare
  99. 1 Lebanon 100 %LSU compare
  100. 1 Lesotho 100 %LSU compare
  101. 1 Liberia 100 %LSU compare
  102. 1 Libya 100 %LSU compare
  103. 1 Lithuania 100 %LSU compare
  104. 1 Luxembourg 100 %LSU compare
  105. 1 Madagascar 100 %LSU compare
  106. 1 Malawi 100 %LSU compare
  107. 1 Malaysia 100 %LSU compare
  108. 1 Mali 100 %LSU compare
  109. 1 Malta 100 %LSU compare
  110. 1 Martinique 100 %LSU compare
  111. 1 Mauritania 100 %LSU compare
  112. 1 Mauritius 100 %LSU compare
  113. 1 Mexico 100 %LSU compare
  114. 1 Mongolia 100 %LSU compare
  115. 1 Montenegro 100 %LSU
  116. 1 Morocco 100 %LSU compare
  117. 1 Mozambique 100 %LSU compare
  118. 1 Myanmar 100 %LSU compare
  119. 1 Namibia 100 %LSU compare
  120. 1 Nauru 100 %LSU compare
  121. 1 Nepal 100 %LSU compare
  122. 1 Netherlands (Kingdom of the) 100 %LSU compare
  123. 1 New Caledonia 100 %LSU compare
  124. 1 New Zealand 100 %LSU compare
  125. 1 Nicaragua 100 %LSU compare
  126. 1 Niger 100 %LSU compare
  127. 1 Nigeria 100 %LSU compare
  128. 1 Niue 100 %LSU compare
  129. 1 North Macedonia 100 %LSU compare
  130. 1 Norway 100 %LSU compare
  131. 1 Oman 100 %LSU compare
  132. 1 Pakistan 100 %LSU compare
  133. 1 Palestine 100 %LSU compare
  134. 1 Panama 100 %LSU compare
  135. 1 Papua New Guinea 100 %LSU compare
  136. 1 Paraguay 100 %LSU compare
  137. 1 Peru 100 %LSU compare
  138. 1 Philippines 100 %LSU compare
  139. 1 Poland 100 %LSU compare
  140. 1 Portugal 100 %LSU compare
  141. 1 Puerto Rico 100 %LSU compare
  142. 1 Qatar 100 %LSU compare
  143. 1 Republic of Korea 100 %LSU compare
  144. 1 Romania 100 %LSU compare
  145. 1 Russian Federation 100 %LSU compare
  146. 1 Rwanda 100 %LSU compare
  147. 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis 100 %LSU compare
  148. 1 Saint Lucia 100 %LSU compare
  149. 1 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 100 %LSU compare
  150. 1 Samoa 100 %LSU compare
  151. 1 Sao Tome and Principe 100 %LSU compare
  152. 1 Saudi Arabia 100 %LSU compare
  153. 1 Senegal 100 %LSU compare
  154. 1 Serbia 100 %LSU
  155. 1 Serbia and Montenegro 100 %LSU compare
  156. 1 Seychelles 100 %LSU compare
  157. 1 Sierra Leone 100 %LSU compare
  158. 1 Singapore 100 %LSU compare
  159. 1 Slovak Republic 100 %LSU compare
  160. 1 Slovenia 100 %LSU compare
  161. 1 Solomon Islands 100 %LSU compare
  162. 1 Somalia 100 %LSU compare
  163. 1 South Africa 100 %LSU compare
  164. 1 South Sudan 100 %LSU
  165. 1 Spain 100 %LSU compare
  166. 1 Sri Lanka 100 %LSU compare
  167. 1 Sudan 100 %LSU
  168. 1 Sudan (former) 100 %LSU compare
  169. 1 Suriname 100 %LSU compare
  170. 1 Sweden 100 %LSU compare
  171. 1 Switzerland 100 %LSU compare
  172. 1 Tajikistan 100 %LSU compare
  173. 1 Thailand 100 %LSU compare
  174. 1 Togo 100 %LSU compare
  175. 1 Tokelau 100 %LSU compare
  176. 1 Tonga 100 %LSU compare
  177. 1 Trinidad and Tobago 100 %LSU compare
  178. 1 Tunisia 100 %LSU compare
  179. 1 Turkmenistan 100 %LSU compare
  180. 1 Tuvalu 100 %LSU compare
  181. 1 Uganda 100 %LSU compare
  182. 1 Ukraine 100 %LSU compare
  183. 1 United Arab Emirates 100 %LSU compare
  184. 1 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 100 %LSU compare
  185. 1 Uruguay 100 %LSU compare
  186. 1 USSR 100 %LSU compare
  187. 1 Uzbekistan 100 %LSU compare
  188. 1 Vanuatu 100 %LSU compare
  189. 1 Yemen 100 %LSU compare
  190. 1 Yugoslav SFR 100 %LSU compare
  191. 1 Zambia 100 %LSU compare
  192. 1 Zimbabwe 100 %LSU compare
  193. 1 Australia and New Zealand 100 %LSU compare
  194. 1 OECD 100 %LSU compare

See the full ranking of 246 places →

More environment data for Réunion

All data for Réunion →

Frequently asked questions

What is major livestock types — share in total livestock in Réunion?
Major livestock types — share in total livestock in Réunion was 100 %LSU in 2006, according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
What is the highest major livestock types — share in total livestock recorded in Réunion?
The highest recorded value was 100 %LSU in 1961.
What is the lowest major livestock types — share in total livestock recorded in Réunion?
The lowest recorded value was 100 %LSU in 1961.
How does Réunion rank for major livestock types — share in total livestock?
Réunion ranks 1st out of 192 countries with data for 2006.
Is major livestock types — share in total livestock rising or falling in Réunion?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Réunion data come from?
The figures come from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as part of Major livestock types — Share in total livestock. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 46 observations, free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Réunion. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 17 August 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/stat/major-livestock-types-share-in-total-livestock/reunion-2/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://environment.statizoid.com/stat/major-livestock-types-share-in-total-livestock/reunion-2/">Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Réunion</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Major livestock types — Share in total livestock
Unit
%LSU
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
246 places, 14,138 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

The Livestock Patterns domain of FAOSTAT contains data on livestock numbers, shares of major livestock species and densities of livestock units in the agricultural land area. Values are calculated using Livestock Units (LSU), which facilitate aggregating information for different livestock types. Data are available by country, with global coverage, for the period 1961 to the most recent year available with annual updates. This methodology applies the LSU coefficients reported in the "Guidelines for the preparation of livestock sector reviews" (FAO, 2011). From this publication, LSU coefficients are computed by livestock type and by country. The reference unit used for the calculation of livestock units (=1 LSU) is the grazing equivalent of one adult dairy cow producing 3000 kg of milk annually, fed without additional concentrated foodstuffs. FAOSTAT agri-environmental indicators on livestock patterns closely follow the structure of the indicators in EUROSTAT.